W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > August 2012

Minutes from the ARIA Task Force Teleconference on 20 August

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:25:15 -0400
To: WAI XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120822212515.GB4483@sonata.rednote.net>
Posted to this list by resolution of PFWG at its weekly teleconference
on 22 August ...


                                                           - DRAFT -

                                       Protocols and Formats Working Group Teleconference
                                                          20 Aug 2012


   See also: IRC log


          Matt_King, Rich, Cooper, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Janina, Joseph_Scheuhammer

          Stefan_Schnabel, Alex_Qiang_Chen, Jon_Gunderson, Cynthia_Shelly




     * Topics
     * Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 20 August 2012

   <janina> Our Zakim is having problems connecting phone calls today!

   <janina> I can't seem to SIP in, or get him to call me!

   <richardschwerdtfe> guzzle

   <janina> Hmmm, just called myself from my cell phgone without problems!

   <janina> So, T-Mobile is reaching me!

   <janina> Guess I'll dial direct ...

   <scribe> scribe:mattking

   <richardschwerdtfe> scribe: mattking

   TOPIC HTML WG decision on issue 204

   RS: WG says we did not provide sufficient justification as to why exposing hidden content in the accessibility tree is
   an undue burden

   JS: Issue is whether we do a formal objection

   RS: hidden content, by design, is often dirty
   ... thisis one reason why the semantics is not exposed in accessibility ree for any hidden content by any browser
   ... If browser does not do tis, that means passing content to AT
   ... that means the AT becomes a browser

   MK: question, is the asertion that hidden content that is referenced as non-referenced hidden content valid?
   ... is the referenced hidden content as likely to be dirty?

   RS: yes, simply because authors do not see and so do not have the same level of awareness
   ... also, browsers do not fix parsing errors in hidden content

   SO, AT would have to both parseand repair the hidden content

   This is way aoutside the scope of AT.

   RS: IBM actually attempted this in a product call Home Page Reader.

   This is a very expensive endeavor.

   RS: HTML WG chairs need to consider this evidence that has already been presented.

   JS: HTML WG wants to use this to replace longdesc.
   ... This has far reaching impacts, and there is a long list of reasons why this approach will not work.
   ... we need the list of technical reasons clearly defined.
   ... Propose we put out a 48 hour call and make this a formal PF objection.
   ... sent e-mail with draft language.

   <clown> Zakim: unmute me

   MC: One issue being raised by HTML WG is that there are no alt proposals being offered.

   RS: there should not be any ARIA authoring guidance in the HTML spec.

   MC: They will ask why we didn't put forward an alt change proposal?

   RS: The text is the spec that is subject of issue 204 should be removed because there was no consensus

   MC: we need to clearly spell out the issues with the change process.
   ... the formal objection needs to be based more on the process isues than the technical issues.

   <clown> Janina's email has arrived.

   <clown> three copies even...

   <clown> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2012JulSep/0118.html

   <clown> http://clown.idrc.ocad.ca/Fluid/aria/HiddenPermutations.html

   <janina> http://john.foliot.ca/html5/w3c/hidden.html

   <janina> http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2012/05/html5-accessibility-chops-hidden-and-aria-hidden/

   MK: is an alt change proposal to prpose the following 3 changes: A) strike the text that is subject of issue 204, B)
   plan for aria-describedat, C) support longdesc until describedat is in place.
   ... do we need an alt proposal on the table like this?

   JS: do not believe that will get us anywhere?
   ... do not want to hold up html5. We are spinning wheels in html.

   MC: HTML WG holds themselves to the letter of a change process that requires options for change to consider.

   RS: implementation of the language that is now in html 5 spec is not clear.
   ... what would actually be spoken by an AT?
   ... appears that all the semantics (code) would be sent into the string.

   MC: see a way of supporting this totally in the browser, e.g., a link that opens the description in a popup.


   RS: may want to add, putting tech issues aside, this redefines how aria specification is defined
   ... None of the browsers support a way of exposing semantics in a description.
   ... does anyone have an objecto to making a formal objection?

   Joseph: is that like a reset of working rleationship with html wg?

   RS: Yes.

   RESOLUTION: ARIA TF supports a formal objection by PF to HTML WG issues 204 decision.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

Found Scribe: mattking
Present: Matt_King Rich Cooper Andi_Snow_Weaver Janina Joseph_Scheuhammer


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

The Linux Foundation
Chair, Open Accessibility:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:25:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:46 UTC